An Open Letter to Cassie Jaye, director of The Red Pill

Paul Elam: Subject of, and fundraiser for, Cassie Jaye’s The Red Pill, in a shot from a preview of the documentary

UPDATE 10/25/16: If you’ve come here after reading about a petition to cancel screenings of The Red Pill, I ask you to NOT sign any such petitions. It’s just free publicity for them. Read more of my thoughts on the matter here.

Dear Cassie Jaye,

Congratulations. You surpassed your Kickstarter fundraising goal yesterday, more than two weeks before the Kickstarter campaign was scheduled to come to a close. You’ve funded the postproduction work on your long-delayed documentary on Men’s Rights activists, and then some.

But I’m not sure that the person I should be congratulating is you. Last night Paul Elam of A Voice for Men – the central subject of your film – was doing his own victory lap online. And no wonder, because he seems to be the real victor here.

In a post on his site that managed to be giddy and vindictive at once, he offered his congratulations to you, then, well, to himself. “Even though the victory goes to Ms. Jaye,” he wrote, in an awkward attempt at modesty, “I have the need to offer up some thanks.”

And then he spelled out why he thinks your “victory” is really a victory for him.

For the past six years AVFM has had mud kicked in its face by a corrupt, left-wing media. Bottom feeders like Adam Serwer, Jeff Sharlet and Mariah Blake have performed endless unscrupulous acts, directly lying to their readers in order to attack AVFM, this movement and me personally.

Their work was not just to harm me, or to damage a website but to make sure if they could that the message we carry never found its way to the larger public. Their intent was and is to paint an indelible stain on all of us so hideous that we would never be taken seriously by enough people to matter.

They have failed, and I can now predict that they have failed miserably.

In other words, Paul Elam thinks he and his friends in what he ludicrously calls the “Men’s Human Rights Movement” have bought and paid for a feature-length advertisement for them.

And it’s not hard to see why Elam – and the other manospherians who’ve rallied around your film in recent days — think this. After all, they are the ones who have rescued your film from oblivion by pouring tens of thousands of dollars into your Kickstarter.

And all it took for you to unleash this torrent of money was an interview with one of the sleaziest figures in right-wing journalism, Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart.

In the interview, posted on Monday, you complained that “I won’t be getting support from feminists. They want a hit piece and I won’t do that.”

There was more than a little bit of irony in the fact that you were saying this to a man infamous for his many hit pieces on so-called “Social Justice Warriors.”

You also complained about an intern on your film who, you said, “had a lot of crying attacks and emotional experiences. She claimed everything I was showing her was triggering her.”

A young feminist “triggered” and crying. This is red meat to the Breitbart crowd, and I have to assume you knew this when you told Milo this story.

To an outside observer like me, this shameful pandering looks a lot like a Hail Mary play on your part. Having failed to convince most potential funders of the film that you would present anything close to an accurate picture of the Men’s Rights movement, you told Breitbart what its readers – and the broader manosphere – wanted to hear.

And it worked. Men’s Rights activists, self-professed “Red Pillers” and other assorted antifeminists rallied around your film, and the money started flowing.

On Reddit, the moderators of the Men’s Rights subreddit “stickied” an appeal to donate to your Kickstarter to the top of their front page, urging MRAs to open their wallets in order to show skeptics that “we can take part in some actual activism and not just post stuff in here.”

And it wasn’t just Men’s Rights and “Red Pill” Redditors who organized support for your film. One right-wing Red Pill blogger, notorious for his harassment of ideological enemies, pledged to match donations up to $10,000, describing your documentary as “the Movie SJWs Do Not Want You to See.”

Accepting money from these people would seem to be a pretty clear violation of the principles you set forth in your own Kickstarter video, in which you declared that

in order to keep this film non-partisan, and respectfully show all sides to this debate, we won’t accept funding from organizations that inevitably have biased agendas.

Instead, you have chosen to take money from people who see your film as a chance to say “fuck you” to feminists. You have chosen to take money from the actual subjects of your film.

You are making a film about Men’s Rights Activists, funded to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars by Men’s Rights Activists. You are making a film about A Voice for Men funded in part by A Voice for Men.

Does that not trouble you at all? It should. In your interview with Breitbart, you noted that “films that support one side and act as propaganda do better than those that try to have an honest look.”

You said this, presumably, to set yourself apart from such propagandists. Now you seem to have cast your lot in with them.

Which I suppose makes sense, since the clips of your film that you’ve posted online so far look a lot more like propaganda than they do like any sort of honest look at the Men’s Rights movement,

I felt uneasy about your project from the start, concerned that you had been pulled in by the soothing but misleading rhetoric that MRAs spout when they are trying to sound more respectable than they really are, rather than on what MRAs actually say and do when the cameras are off of them.

But I knew you had a good reputation as a filmmaker, and heard good things from several feminists who knew you better than I did. So I held my tongue and tried my best to give you the benefit of the doubt, even when you posted clips from your film that portrayed AVFMers as heroic underdogs rather than the misogynists and malicious harassers that they really are.

When I wrote you a little over a week ago with some of my concerns, you assured me in the phone call that followed that the clips you had posted were only part of the story, that you were well aware that the MRAs you had interviewed were on their best behavior when talking to you, and that the real story of the Men’s Rights movement is far less rosy-hued. Against my better judgement, I continued to hold on to some kind of hope that you would live up to your reputation in the end.

And now, frankly, I feel like I’ve been played.

Unfortunately, it looks like you have been played too, much more spectacularly than I have. I suspect you are doing far more damage to your reputation than you even know.

One thing I have learned in five years of watching, and writing about, and dealing with, the Men’s Rights movement, is that if Paul Elam is happy about something, that thing is almost certainly terrible.

I suspect, sadly, that you will ultimately learn this lesson yourself, the hard way.

PS: In our phone conversation, you suggested that if you were able to fund your film, you might be able to finally film the interview with me that we originally had planned to do, but which fell through due to financial and other practical obstacles during the original filming of The Red Pill. At this point, I am sorry to say, that is completely out of the question.

Comments

What, you mean you don’t work ten hours a day with perfect clothes and perfect hair and a perfect smile, then come home and clean everything spotless, make a three course dinner, then get a lovely solid eight hours of rest to wake refreshed for a new day? But it’s so easy!

@ Imperator Kahlo, I suppose you are talking about her initial challenge of the sexist language in the new Canadian Childcare Benefit. She recanted that later with an edit see below.

Edited to add: Ahh, look at that! That language still exists in the new program, drat it drat it drat it!

I am really disappointed. When it wasn’t on the ‘primary caregiver’ page, I was hoping that we had got rid of it.

It does say ‘usually’, so there should be wiggle room, but this isn’t a thing that should happen.

Our PM said “Because it is 2015” when asked why he felt a need to balance his cabinet by gender. I guess if he was asked why the archaic tax laws related to support and the sexist language related to the new Child Care Benefit exist he would respond “Because it’s 1955”.

My point has always been that the discussion of gender equity is a two-way discussion. However, it would appear some of my opponents believe there is not enough oxygen in the room after the female side of the discussion has had their intake to include men in the discussion. I am constantly verbally bludgeoned for this opinion but I still do not understand why? many feminists (not all) have made this a gender battleground – just as many men’s rights activists have done likewise. It is a little sad that I have been categorized in such a negative light for little more than having an opinion which differs from some of you. Someone said they feel sorry for my daughter. To many of you I feel sorry for any children you have as you seem unwilling to welcome open discussion and dialogue. You have made up your minds and any opposing opinion will only be met with scorn and ridicule rather than empathy and consideration.

Andrew, if you’re interested in an actual discussion, go ahead, go back, and read the five pages of us saying that no, we don’t actually hate men, and no, we don’t think that the plight of men is minimal. We know that they get hurt by societal bias, we don’t like it, and we’re interested in making efforts to change that, to improve their lives and the lives of everyone.

Key difference is that we also recognize that women are affected by that societal bias as well as men, and it affects many more women, and affects them in such a way that there’s less they can do about it. That’s why it’s called Feminism.

If you want that talk, then great. Otherwise, you may continue your argument one-sided, because it’s clear that you’e only ever acknowledged your own side in it from the beginning.

Unlike some states which have made it so only the payor’s primary job can be used to determine support Canada allows the recipient to not only include a secondary income in the calculation but leaves it to the judge’s discretion to impute that income upon the payor should they quit or voluntarily reduce their income from that secondary job. So in my case my ex does not believe what my income from secondary job is, has no proof that it is what she claims and yet here we are with her trying to use an income number about $10,000 above what it really is to calculate support (she backed off from a claim that was $18,000 above).

I’m not suggesting you quit one of your jobs so you don’t have to pay child support or whatever you’re being an ass about, I’m suggesting you quit one so you’d be happier, like, more sleep, more time with the kids, maybe you can’t afford the coolest gadget every year but maybe you’ll be happier.

Of course, I don’t know WHY you need $80,000+ a year. Maybe you have expensive bills to pay or whatever and I know the advice is unsolicited but if you make decent money with one job just quit the other one if you don’t wanna work two jobs. Like, I don’t know, $40,000 is enough, isn’t it?

Really? You really want to go there? You are a fucking ass for even saying this.

Thank you! And I noticed your name change. Spiffy. Taking a page out of my book. Such a flatterer. No wonder you were once married. You’re such a catch to be thrown back.

But, for real, I’m pretty tired of seeing people saying someone’s a “good father” for brushing their kids’ hair or playing dress up with them or cooking food for them. Like, that’s “average father”, that’s what you do as a father, that’s the job description. That’s like saying that someone is a “good worker” because they do the minimum amount of what their job entails.

If you go beyond what an average father entails, good for you. Obviously my criticism doesn’t apply to you because you’re genuinely a good father and whoever you know are genuinely good fathers, but I’m not gonna celebrate mediocrity just because someone’s a man and hangs out with their kid voluntarily.

@Andrew. I did see the edit, as unlike you I can read for comprehension. Your point was that the benefit automatically went to the woman in the house. Rhuu found that the benefit automatics goes to the PRIMARY CAREGIVER. Unfortunately the law goes on to unnecessary state that that person is usually a woman (due to patriarchal, anti-feminist assumptions). However, your point has still been shown to be wrong, and I think you should be concerned about your lack of comprehensive understanding of a topic you are so passionate about.

$40K Canadian (~29K USD) isn’t that much, especially with kids. Tho, they do have government helathcare, so maybe it evens out. And don’t forget the kids’ ridiculously expensive extracurricular activities. A dad has to provide for his family! While incessantly complaining about how he has to provide for his family. Get yo paper, bruh!

Sorry to spam the thread, everyone. I had some time and was back at my computer, so I trawled back through the thread to make sure my recollection of Andrew’s side point about the UCCB was correct.

He wrote:

Why does the new UCCB in Canada automatically go to the “woman of the house” regardless if she is the biological parent or not?

So again, as Rhuu showed, the legislation contains some problematic language – saying the primary caregiver is usually the woman in the home – but doesn’t, in fact, do what Andrew says. Rather, it says that the benefit should automatically go to the primary caregiver.

I’m harping on this point because everybody else has the rest of Andrew’s gish gallop well in hand, and because I think it’s pretty indicative of the flaws in his thinking. Like, his understanding is tangential to the truth, but lacks nuance. Not to mention that the problems that do exist would be better fixed by aligning with feminists rather than blaming them.

Also, on my skim through each post Andrew has made during his illustrious stay at WHTM, I found the answer to the when-the-fuck-does-he-even-have-his-kids debate! Paaaaages back, he wrote:

I have my son Sunday – Wednesday and my daughter Sunday – Tuesday. I make all their breakfasts, lunches and dinners on all those days. I get the kids to school on those days. I manage ALL of my son’s rep hockey schedule on my days as well as my ex’s days. I help coach his team and am present about 4-5 times per week during hockey season. I work 9-5 Monday to Friday. I also work a second job on Friday and Saturday evenings. Anyone else looking to attack me based on misguided societal stereotypes?

Why he didn’t just do precisely what I just did instead of getting hugely offended every time somebody misremembered his previous remarks (but not clarifying his schedule to facilitate better discussion) is beyond me.

Oh wait, I do know. Waiting around for a feminist to do your work is chapter 1 in the how to MRA textbook!

I’ve only just popped in and caught up on the recent comments here, so apologies and probs no-one will see this 🙂

A few pages back, Equal Shared Parenting was being held up as a Very Wonderful Thing, which on the surface you’d think it would be. And yes we did/do have it here in Australia although it’s a little up in the air at the moment. Jess Hill, an award-winning journalist, has covered the recent history of the Family Court, here. I just want to highlight this, from when ESP held sway:

ne 2007 Family Court judgement stated that “The consequences of denying contact between the abusive parent, usually the father, and the child may well be as serious as the risk of harm from abuse … There is no presumption or a priori rule that even gross misbehaviour such as child sexual abuse … puts up an insurmountable barrier in the way of having contact with a child victim.”

Yes, I saw that; it’s an interesting issue that LG has raised. I’ve been giving it a lot of thought – especially as I have a 14 year old son, plus I teach young adults (university).
(I don’t mind being called Misha, by the way – it’s another of my many nicknames 🙂 )

To try and be open and fair, I’ve read a few of your articles and comments, and also those from the sites that you seem to attack regularly. I found both yours and AVFM to be quite aggressive (mostly about each others different positions). It seems pretty pointless. You say you are right, they say they are right, then some fairy rude comments, and stubborn/intractable positions i.e. “PS: In our phone conversation, you suggested that if you were able to fund your film, you might be able to finally film the interview with me that we originally had planned to do, but which fell through due to financial and other practical obstacles during the original filming of The Red Pill. At this point, I am sorry to say, that is completely out of the question.” WHY? I just don’t see any basis for that. Because she dared to talk to people that you disaprove of??? I was brought up to believe that understanding comes from dialogue and discussion, and yet you just want to stifle all debate (I believe this is what is called an “echo chamber”). I really don’t get why people choose aggression and derision over discussion.

To be fair, you are both entitled not to like each other (you and this Paul Elam person), but I don’t think either of you can be accused of being “reasonable and balanced” – it all just looks like hurling abuse and each site pretending they have the moral high ground (both this site and AVFM – and I’d say neither does). This all reminds me of that war in 1984, the one that is completely invented by the government to keep the population docile … I’m bewildered by the aggression …

I think from what I see, that you presumably mean “the opinion that non-cisgender non-heterosexual non-white non-males deserve respect and that white males deserve zero respect”?

I’m really curious why you bring “race” and “gender” into everything. I see it everywhere on this site after jumping around a bit. Constantly demeaning and denigrating people based upon the colour of their skin (with a particular focus of open hatred of “white males”). That’s dictionary definition racism. Is this what “radfems” do? Personally, I don’t care what colour a persons skin is, or their gender, I think the content of their character is what defines a person, and constantly dividing groups based upon gender or skin colour, is a bit … ultra-creepy … don’t you think?

I definitely will try and see this Red Pill film. I very much believe in open discussion and being able to use all information sources to form an understanding. The author of this piece is basically instructing everyone to boycott this Director Cassie Jaye, and for what? I note that none of you address that point.

hmm, I have found a thing about her here, I guess I’ll start with this, as I cannot find anywhere to watch this “Red Pill” film online, this seems to be an hour interview with her, and looks to be done after this film was made, so is relevant to the article in hand.

Constantly demeaning and denigrating people based upon the colour of their skin (with a particular focus of open hatred of “white males”). That’s dictionary definition racism.

I can’t imagine why I’m having a hard time believing that you’re a totally neutral observer who just happens to think feminists are such big meanies.

It’s also pretty damn hard to believe you just happened to find an hour long video about Cassie Jaye and just happened to decide it’s worth watching so you better spam it here.

BTW, did you know that Jaye’s new buddy Matt Forney under his former pseudonym Ferdinand Bardimu once wrote about how domestic violence is necessary because without women will behave no better than chimps? Care to explain how that shit is equivalent to feminists saying men have privilege and white people have privilege? Or whatever it is that we said that has you laboring under the delusion that feminism hates white cishet men the way that anti-feminism hates everyone else?

Yor, we know our opinions better than you do. Where was it said, or even insinuated, that white males deserve zero respect? There are some white males that deserve zero respect, not because of their race and gender, but because of their words and deeds (der Pumpkinführer, Anglin of Stormfront, Adolf Hitler, &c). Just as there are some women that deserve zero respect because of their words and deeds, and not because of their race or gender (“JudgyBitch” is the most ready example).

“Division” by race, gender, &c. is necessary because those are the main criteria by which society ranks people, and we think that such ranking is unjust, no matter who is on top. If the Chinese (rather than the Europeans) had conquered the world and set themselves at the top of the social hierarchy, you would be complaining that we are anti-Chinese.

Have you ever heard of google? This was like about the first thing I hit when I typed “cassie jaye youtube”. Try it. You’ll be amazed.

I agree that there are some white males that deserve zero respect. There are also some females that deserve zero respect, right? Also some gay people that deserve zero respect. Also some trans people that deserve zero respect. I think all people that want to make everything about race and gender fall clearly into that camp.

Division by race and gender is wrong. I will always be against that, it goes against all that I stand for, which is equality for all people. I reject all peddlers of ways to build walls between race and gender. People that say “I am a man, so women are not allowed to comment on my life!” or “I am a woman, so men are not allowed to talk about womens issues!”. No, we are all entitled to debate, or else we live in a little totalitarian nightmare (I sometimes think that is what some people want – no debate, no discussion, silence all “wrong-think” etc).

“Jaye’s new buddy Matt Forney under his former pseudonym Ferdinand Bardimu once wrote about how domestic violence is necessary because without women will behave no better than chimps?”

I have no idea who that is. I’ll look into it, but I will tell you this, here is hypocrisy:

– Hillary Clinton actively opposed gay rights for 30 years, fighting hard to prevent gay marriage. Apparently she had a change of heart in 2013 (yeah, I bet it had nothing at all to do with focus groups suggesting it might hurt her in an election. noooo, that would be too hard to believe!).
– Jeff Sessions is *alleged* to have made racist comments in the 1980’s. Additionally, he fought against the KKK in the south of America and got the first death sentence for a KKK member since 1920. The KKK utterly despise him.

a) we are told that we must forgive Hillary all of her opposition to gay rights, and that she is a wonderful human being.
b) we are told that Jeff Sessions must be called a “racist” and “White Supremacist” until the end of time, even though he’s fought more against the KKK than probably every person that has ever criticised him.

So this is how I view the world. There is a lot of hypocrisy that wants to feed us fake narratives. I take people on what they DO, and I am quite wary about what they are “alleged” to have said. So whatever this person related to Cassie Jaye is, or has said, or has done, that is not a reflection upon her as a person. That exactly why I am against “racialising” and “genderising” everything. Take a person by their actions and words, and don’t listen to people that do pathetic hit pieces to try and demean and denigrate.

I don’t know who the author of this article that I’m commenting on is (it does not say) but that byline about how they refuse to do an interview with this Cassie Jaye, there is no other way to say it, that is about stifling debate, pure echo chamber bigotry.

I’ve watched the first part of that interview with Cassie Jaye, going to watch the second half later.

@ Yor, I saw The Red Pill and it is worth seeing. When faced with facts and statistics that men do face discrimination any of those on the feminist side of the debate responded like holocaust denyers.

Many parts of the debate are troubling. The way the media covers gender and they way government responds is just one. The Islamist extremist group Boko Haram has killed hundreds of young boys and kidnapped thousands more in Nigeria. This received little attention in the media and from governments around the world yet when 200 young girls are kidnapped in Nigeria it takes over the headlines and is top-of-mind among governments and organizations like the UN.

@ Yor, give up trying to win hearts and minds here. Most (not all) of the regulars on this site have cold hearts and closed minds. Not worth your time to try and warm their hearts to a real dialogue and open their minds to the real possibility that women do not have the market cornered on discrimination.

I love the irony. I don’t *defend* Jeff Sessions. He could be a right asshole for all I know. But I made it clear. I showed clear hypocrisy. Hillary Clinton, 30 years of fighting AGAINST gay rights. So I know that Hillary is a toxic homophobic piece of sh*t. No wait, I can *show* that based on her fight against gay people. As I said, it’s all about what people do, not what fake news narratives tell us we are supposed to believe.

Anything to say about Hillary’s record on gay rights? no … just tumbleweed and a refusal to show anything resembling intellect huh …

weirwood, you are the definition of a bigot. Look up that word sometime, I don’t think it means what you think it means. Your bigotry (dictionary definition) is a joke to behold. You are like a child having a tantrum. You need to find out what “bigotry” means, and then you need to dip your whole self in sh*t. Would probably do you a lot of good (I know you are used to sh*t, as all you seem to do looking at your comments is hurl sh*t). I dunno why you are so pointless and so incapable of understanding (i.e. trying to say that I am defending Jeff Sessions, completely ignoring the content of what I said). I guess you just have a lack of education, very low I.Q. the usual, but there we go. You are a moron weirwood.

Sockpuppet, haha, I’m no one’s sockpuppet, that’s funny 🙂

I love the tears of you people. You are so bitter and twisted that the world does not love you. Reality is that the world probably doesn’t like you because you project your toxic values to everyone around you, and so everyone is repulsed by you. I get it, some men can be toxic shits also, but you people are just hilarious at how clueless you are “male tears” jesus, get a grip, are you still crying over Hillary losing. Did you cry and cry and cry some more? hehe 🙂

Dandy Andy, thanks, I’ll track that film down. I love the irony here. They cannot imagine the possibility that people could find their vile and offensive attitude obnoxious (cos they are just wonderful, in their perverted heads!) so any person like me that comes along must be a “sockpuppet”. It’s inconceivable that anyone could show them anything but reverence.

This article is ABOUT the stifling and shutting down of debate. That’s what this twit says right at the end of the article, basically, “I refuse to talk to this person, cos I am BETTER, so there!” just basically a child hurling it’s toys out of a pram. Absolutely hilarious.

I guess these people are what are called “Social Justice Warriors”, clueless that believe they are fighting for Jusice and Equality, but in fact are just toxic petulant crybabies that group gibber at anyone that disagrees with the group-think. Wow, truly pitiful … Cassie Jaye seems quite reasonable and smart from what I’ve seen on that interview so far. Is weirwood in charge here, it sort of looks like they all congregate around her, I’m guessing she’s she alpha-twit, they do seem to grovel at her feet a bit. Hey ho, I’ve seen Christian forums before, and you know, this is identical. Dogmatic, rude, paranoid, incapable of reasonable debate, etc etc. weirwood is as bad as the worst Evangelicals, but hilariously, just like the Evangelicals, she’s incapable of seeing it due to the complete brainwashing.

Wow, imagine being her partner. That must be awful … How anyone could suffer that. That poor person has my infinite sympathy …

The funny thing is that, no, no feminazi stole my ice cream. You clowns don’t get it yet do you. No one really cares what you think. I know this is hard to take. You are constructing fairytales, like children. This idea that you are cool and in charge, and I’m crying over feminazi’s. If you got the same animation with me rolling about on the floor laughing with some fat angry twit radical feminists ranting all day long, then that would be spot on … 🙂

“PS: In our phone conversation, you suggested that if you were able to fund your film, you might be able to finally film the interview with me that we originally had planned to do, but which fell through due to financial and other practical obstacles during the original filming of The Red Pill. At this point, I am sorry to say, that is completely out of the question.”

Yeah, that’s not shutting down debate at all … lol. Wait a minute, change of heart, I’ve decided I want to be like you. I will say all the mantra’s to join the cult. “Patriarchy!”, “Toxic Masculinity!”, “Rape Culture!”, “It’s all straight white men’s fault “. Please let me join the cult. I’m guessing it has to be weirwood that ok’s it as she’s the most bitter? Please weirwood, please can become a bitter person with no social life, just like you! Go on, I’ll be great, I’ll say 50x “Patriarchy!”‘s (hail-Mary’s) a day, and flagellate myself over my “white male privilege” (original sin). I will be aspire to being as miserable and horrible as all the others, and I will put up GIF’s that try to make out that we are all really cool and tough and “right-on activists!” (instead of the fat basement manatees that the rest of the cult are!). Ok, I’m not a fat basement manatee, but apart from that, I reckon I’ve got what it takes to be as bitter and miserable as you are. Pleeeeeeeezzzzzzeeee? 🙂

I think you already do grovel at her feet, as weirwood really does seem to be the “there was blood coming out of her … wherever!” chief manatee on this site. Andy, you are right, there is probably no point trying to have reasoned, equality based discussions with a Feminist. They are simply anti-Equality, dogmatic, empty, and hate-filled. I do live in hope of talking to reasonable feminists, but the cult-like (and manatee-like) behaviour is like a talking to a Christian about religion.

I had a friend that came up with a good way to get Womens Rights Advocates like these on-side, it was a brilliant strategy, and it does work. What you have to do is manipulate their “shame and victimhood” virus ideology against them. It’s a brilliant technique. They are so wrapped up in their dogma that they can’t stop themselves. It’s like throwing a dog a stick, they always go after it. Genius system, I’ve seen him wrap some around his finger quite well. Bedded a few of these miserable toxic sanitary towels as well (though I wouldn’t want to go there myself personally, I can only hold my nose so long).

Donate to the Mammoth!

We Hunted the Mammoth is an ad-free, reader-supported publication written and published by longtime journalist David Futrelle, who has been tracking, dissecting, and mocking the growing misogynistic backlash since 2010, exposing the hateful ideologies of Men’s Rights Activists, incels, alt-rightists and many others.

We depend on support from people like you. Please consider a donation or a monthly pledge by clicking below! there's no need for a PayPal account.

Send comments, questions, and tips for stories to me at dfutrelle@gmail.com, or by clicking here